If a guy says "I'm a Muslim," I'm going to assume he has some views about how women are inferior to men, because that's one of the tenets of Islam.
Citation please?
(I mean, ugh, don't make me defend Islam, but a lot of things are talked about as though they are common knowledge about what "Islam" teaches or the "tenets" of Islam [5 pillars of faith? 6 pillars of belief? Because I can't think of anything else resembling "tenets"] and I have to say most of it is from a position of ignorance. So if you have a Qur'anic quote and not just "Iran stones women" that would be great.)
From the Quran 4:7:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
(I don't know if 4:7 is proper notation, just got it from a wiki link.)
The Five Pillars of Islam don't include "Fuck Women, they're like dirt", I was using tenet as a general sort of "this is an accepted part of the religion".
That's an excellent quote and example, as well as an example of a quote that is followed by varying degrees depending on the reader, as in all Abrahamic religions - by which I mean the entire Qur'an is an "accepted part of the religion" so there isn't really anything that is more of a "tenet" than another. (Edit: I just want to be clear, I've sat with a few Muslim misogynists in my time and they actually don't use this one to back up their agenda. That's usually saved for the hadith, which can be quite vicious.)
I do hope you make the same assumption that if a man is Christian or Jewish, that he accepts the tenets of those religions that women are inferior to men.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I do hope you make the same assumption that if a man is Christian or Jewish, that he accepts the tenets of those religions that women are inferior to men.
Many of them do, yes, especially evangelicals and Baptists. Baptists don't even allow women to enter seminary. Women are expressly instructed on subservience and adherence to their husbands.
Is the misogyny at the same level of most Islamic countries? No, but I feel that's much more a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. Go back a couple hundred years in American history, and you'll see laws on the books that govern the proper legal way to beat your wife. Check out early Puritan colonies' rules on intermarital relationships.
Basically, it's an issue of secular education and enlightenment superseding any religious instruction because it makes sense and the oppressed eventually see the bullshit chauvinism disguised as religion as a worse alternative than the possibility of eternal damnation.
But Islamic countries tend to be far less educated than Western countries, or at the very least restricted by law in how much deviation from religion their education can be.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
There's a lot more. But I think what you're saying is that it's safe to assume that any Christian I meet believes wives are the property of husbands.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
There's a lot more. But I think what you're saying is that it's safe to assume that any Christian I meet believes wives are the property of husbands.
And that specifically, women are inferior to men (the Bible doesn't say this explicitly, but neither does the Qur'an, and yet it's cited to support the assertion). All these books pay the usual respect to "women should submit to their husbands and not do any of that silly talking too much stuff," but to assume that the follower of one religion believes it more fervently than any other religion's followers is a bit of a leap.
I do hope you make the same assumption that if a man is Christian or Jewish, that he accepts the tenets of those religions that women are inferior to men.
Many of them do, yes, especially evangelicals and Baptists. Baptists don't even allow women to enter seminary. Women are expressly instructed on subservience and adherence to their husbands.
Is the misogyny at the same level of most Islamic countries? No, but I feel that's much more a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. Go back a couple hundred years in American history, and you'll see laws on the books that govern the proper legal way to beat your wife. Check out early Puritan colonies' rules on intermarital relationships.
Basically, it's an issue of secular education and enlightenment superseding any religious instruction because it makes sense and the oppressed eventually see the bullshit chauvinism disguised as religion as a worse alternative than the possibility of eternal damnation.
But Islamic countries tend to be far less educated than Western countries, or at the very least restricted by law in how much deviation from religion their education can be.
Agreed on all of this, but I'd also like to re-iterate that not every Muslim in America is an immigrant from the Middle East and therefore it's a fallacy to ascribe cultural assumptions (such as cultural misogyny) to a Muslim just because they're Muslim.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
There's a lot more. But I think what you're saying is that it's safe to assume that any Christian I meet believes wives are the property of husbands.
And that specifically, women are inferior to men (the Bible doesn't say this explicitly, but neither does the Qur'an, and yet it's cited to support the assertion). All these books pay the usual respect to "women should submit to their husbands and not do any of that silly talking too much stuff," but to assume that the follower of one religion believes it more fervently than any other religion's followers is a bit of a leap.
I do hope you make the same assumption that if a man is Christian or Jewish, that he accepts the tenets of those religions that women are inferior to men.
Many of them do, yes, especially evangelicals and Baptists. Baptists don't even allow women to enter seminary. Women are expressly instructed on subservience and adherence to their husbands.
Is the misogyny at the same level of most Islamic countries? No, but I feel that's much more a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. Go back a couple hundred years in American history, and you'll see laws on the books that govern the proper legal way to beat your wife. Check out early Puritan colonies' rules on intermarital relationships.
Basically, it's an issue of secular education and enlightenment superseding any religious instruction because it makes sense and the oppressed eventually see the bullshit chauvinism disguised as religion as a worse alternative than the possibility of eternal damnation.
But Islamic countries tend to be far less educated than Western countries, or at the very least restricted by law in how much deviation from religion their education can be.
Agreed on all of this, but I'd also like to re-iterate that not every Muslim in America is an immigrant from the Middle East and therefore it's a fallacy to ascribe cultural assumptions (such as cultural misogyny) to a Muslim just because they're Muslim.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at, it's subject to interpretation and different sects within each religion interpret passages differently. Islam, like Christianity, is too varied to make more than the most general assumptions about one's beliefs.
oldsak on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
In any case, I was using it in the post you quoted as an example of a religious belief that is generally held to be true by most of its followers - if you'd care to substitute a different one (like the ones I listed for Catholicism in the same post) then we can talk about the main point, which is that religions are self-selecting groups of people (at least in countries with free religion).
If you've selected to follow a religion and label yourself as a part of it, I don't see how it's "basically racism" to think "Hmm, this person is a follower of Religion X; Religion X's main beliefs are A, B, and C; it's likely that this person believes B." Maybe they'd say "Actually I only believe A and C" - now I know something about them besides their self-chosen religious label and can judge them accordingly (and more accurately). But it's not unreasonable to think (on the outset, when all I know about them is their religion) that a follower of a religion believes in that religion's main tenets.
And eventually there's some threshold where they're like "Actually I don't believe A, B, or C." At that point I go, well, why do you even consider yourself a follower of Religion X then?
In any case, I was using it in the post you quoted as an example of a religious belief that is generally held to be true by most of its followers - if you'd care to substitute a different one (like the ones I listed for Catholicism in the same post) then we can talk about the main point, which is that religions are self-selecting groups of people (at least in countries with free religion).
If you've selected to follow a religion and label yourself as a part of it, I don't see how it's "basically racism" to think "Hmm, this person is a follower of Religion X; Religion X's main beliefs are A, B, and C; it's likely that this person believes B." Maybe they'd say "Actually I only believe A and C" - now I know something about them besides their self-chosen religious label and can judge them accordingly (and more accurately). But it's not unreasonable to think (on the outset, when all I know about them is their religion) that a follower of a religion believes in that religion's main tenets.
And eventually there's some threshold where they're like "Actually I don't believe A, B, or C." At that point I go, well, why do you even consider yourself a follower of Religion X then?
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
oldsak on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
I posted the quote because sid asked for a quote. How about we replace the "views about how women are inferior to men" part with "views about not eating pork", since that's more applicable to American Muslims?
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Also, the Qur'an totally does establish a minimum code of dress for both men and women, although it is more restrictive for women. It also establishes where women and men can worship, and broadly how.
Re: KalTorak's quote, it's not so much that Muslims "disregard" what the Qur'an says, but that rarely do moderate Muslims interpret the texts for themselves and, to be frank, the passage just isn't that applicable to most modern, Western Muslims' lives, especially when Muslim women work freely and bring home the bacon as often as not. Edit: In fact, one of the interpretations is that the entire quote is situational, and therefore if the situation doesn't exist (that the man is fully supporting the woman), none of the rest does, either. There is also substantial murmuring about the proper translation of the verb that represented "to beat".
As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
Why not? What basis do you have for this claim? Who says it's not a buffet and what authority do they have to decide that?
Throughout history, religions have changed, evolved, and been absorbed into other religions. Then a couple religions WRITE DOWN the stuff they believe in and suddenly people grouse because, holy shit, what people believe doesn't match what was written down, it's like that religion is evolving and changing! Interestingly, the Catholic church actually considers over-dependance on the Bible to be "bibliolatry"--idol worship of the Bible, ignoring the fact that Christianity (so the Catholic church feels) is much more than just "the words in that there book".
Incidentally, I lived in group housing one summer for a job, and one of my coworkers was a Muslim girl who was a liberal feminist. (And, yes, she ate pork.)
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Just another reason NYC is awesome.
oldsak on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Dress codes are not federally defined, and though the fight has been ridiculous and protracted, nudity has been found to be protected free speech.
As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
Why not? What basis do you have for this claim? Who says it's not a buffet and what authority do they have to decide that?
It certainly seems better for society when people treat their particular religion as a buffet. But at that point, one tends to wonder why they bother with the label of that particular religion at all, when all the good, moral things they actually believe derive from elsewhere(ie: secular post-Enlightenment thought).
FCD on
Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Incidentally, I lived in group housing one summer for a job, and one of my coworkers was a Muslim girl who was a liberal feminist. (And, yes, she ate pork.)
Was she also a lesbian who exclusively slept with men?
This is little more than gooseish sophistry and mental gymnastics employed as a crutch to people who can't intellectually separate themselves from their culture.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
Or, you know, we haven't used to "feathers up the ass" thing in a while here. I'll go with that.
This is little more than gooseish sophistry and mental gymnastics employed as a crutch to people who can't intellectually separate themselves from their culture.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
So would you consider any Christian who joins the army to not "really" be a Christian, since it says "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" in one part? How about people who eat shellfish? The Bible clearly says that's an abomination.
Sorry, I don't think someone needs to follow every word of a religious book to belong to a particular religion. It's not even possible in Christianity ("an eye for an eye" . . . "oh wait, don't take an eye for an eye after all"), so I guess Christians don't exist?
LadyM on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
The point is, where's the line? At what point does it become meaningless for anyone to label themselves as belonging to a certain faith even though they don't actually believe any of it? We've already established that it isn't the letter of the holy book for most people. Is someone a Catholic if they never go to church? If they are pro-choice/pro-death penalty/pro-birth control? If they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah? Why call yourself a Catholic at that point? And if you do call yourself a Catholic, why is it surprising that people assume that you go to church occasionally and believe Jesus was the Messiah?
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
It reminds me of an old story I heard in some book. It went something like this: A man was accused of being an Cathar. In replay, he said, "I am a good Catholic; I lie, drink, and swear."
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Dress codes are not federally defined, and though the fight has been ridiculous and protracted, nudity has been found to be protected free speech.
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Just another reason NYC is awesome.
As is Ontario, and Saskatchewan. A few other provinces may have joined the fun, but I'm not current on the details.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
So, I was googling around for different things, such as the Suras which talk about women's inheritence being half that of men's and so forth. And I found this gem.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
It reminds me of an old story I heard in some book. It went something like this: A man was accused of being an Cathar. In replay, he said, "I am a good Catholic; I lie, drink, and swear."
My favorite version of that is the difference between a Jew, a Muslim, and a Baptist.
Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Muslims don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and Baptist don't recognize each other at the bar.
So, I was googling around for different things, such as the Suras which talk about women's inheritence being half that of men's and so forth. And I found this gem.
I have no intent to discuss the doctrine of my church here; as it goes I beleive in it - I understand that other people don't and that serves me just fine. I myself served a full time mission in Frankfurt Germany, I did door to door Proseletizing every day for two years. I avoided people who didn't want it, I taught those who did. As to what was stated earlier in the thread about never seeing a convert from a mission - I ended up baptizing 11 people, and know several who baptized many (ranging between 20 to a 100) in other countries. Whether or not they stayed active and were actually baptized in good faith in the church is another question.
I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?
Edit - and no you can't be excommunicated for not paying tithing. You just can't go to the temple if you're not paying your tithes.
Faith is blind by definition, Mormons aren't unique in this.
Incidentally, I lived in group housing one summer for a job, and one of my coworkers was a Muslim girl who was a liberal feminist. (And, yes, she ate pork.)
Was she also a lesbian who exclusively slept with men?
This is little more than gooseish sophistry and mental gymnastics employed as a crutch to people who can't intellectually separate themselves from their culture.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
Or, you know, we haven't used to "feathers up the ass" thing in a while here. I'll go with that.
You seem to be forgetting that Islam, like Christianity, is comprised of many sects with varying beliefs.
You're making assumptions about their beliefs based on your interpretation of their book and the actions of some muslims.
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Also, the Qur'an totally does establish a minimum code of dress for both men and women, although it is more restrictive for women. It also establishes where women and men can worship, and broadly how.
Re: KalTorak's quote, it's not so much that Muslims "disregard" what the Qur'an says, but that rarely do moderate Muslims interpret the texts for themselves and, to be frank, the passage just isn't that applicable to most modern, Western Muslims' lives, especially when Muslim women work freely and bring home the bacon as often as not. Edit: In fact, one of the interpretations is that the entire quote is situational, and therefore if the situation doesn't exist (that the man is fully supporting the woman), none of the rest does, either. There is also substantial murmuring about the proper translation of the verb that represented "to beat".
I'd say that anybody who isn't following their silly book and isn't doing what's in it doesn't count as religious. That woman not covered up, not a Muslim.
Your book gives you a specific set of rules. That includes what you can eat, how you must dress, your place and role in the world, and when you should kill people. DO YOU DO WHAT YOUR BOOK SAYS. If you don't, you can't claim you're part of that religion.
The crazy clerics in Iran and Saudi, those are Muslims. The "nice" people in the US, not Muslims. The fundies that want to kill gays and gives us religious laws, those are christians. The smiths down the block that think it's all OK, bold faced liars.
There is no such thing as a religious moderate, those people aren't actually religious. Or at worse, they are heretics breaking their sacred books laws so as not to get in trouble with society.
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Also, the Qur'an totally does establish a minimum code of dress for both men and women, although it is more restrictive for women. It also establishes where women and men can worship, and broadly how.
Re: KalTorak's quote, it's not so much that Muslims "disregard" what the Qur'an says, but that rarely do moderate Muslims interpret the texts for themselves and, to be frank, the passage just isn't that applicable to most modern, Western Muslims' lives, especially when Muslim women work freely and bring home the bacon as often as not. Edit: In fact, one of the interpretations is that the entire quote is situational, and therefore if the situation doesn't exist (that the man is fully supporting the woman), none of the rest does, either. There is also substantial murmuring about the proper translation of the verb that represented "to beat".
I'd say that anybody who isn't following their silly book and isn't doing what's in it doesn't count as religious. That woman not covered up, not a Muslim.
Well, for one, the koran says to dress modestly. It doesn't specify any particular clothing, and the definition of modest dress has been interpreted differently by different groups.
Secondly, is it also your contention that any person who does not follow all the rules in the Bible is not a Christian? There are a lot of stupid rules in the Bible and I don't know any so called Christians who follow them all.
Your book gives you a specific set of rules. That includes what you can eat, how you must dress, your place and role in the world, and when you should kill people. DO YOU DO WHAT YOUR BOOK SAYS. If you don't, you can't claim you're part of that religion.
The crazy clerics in Iran and Saudi, those are Muslims. The "nice" people in the US, not Muslims. The fundies that want to kill gays and gives us religious laws, those are christians. The smiths down the block that think it's all OK, bold faced liars.
There is no such thing as a religious moderate, those people aren't actually religious. Or at worse, they are heretics breaking their sacred books laws so as not to get in trouble with society.
You're assuming the book is the end all be all of any given religion. For many it's not.
Incidentally, I lived in group housing one summer for a job, and one of my coworkers was a Muslim girl who was a liberal feminist. (And, yes, she ate pork.)
Was she also a lesbian who exclusively slept with men?
This is little more than gooseish sophistry and mental gymnastics employed as a crutch to people who can't intellectually separate themselves from their culture.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
Or, you know, we haven't used to "feathers up the ass" thing in a while here. I'll go with that.
You seem to be forgetting that Islam, like Christianity, is comprised of many sects with varying beliefs.
You're making assumptions about their beliefs based on your interpretation of their book and the actions of some muslims.
It's intellectually lazy.
I am not aware of any sects of Islam that eat pork.
I'm sorry, but that person was not religiously observant. It's quite a stretch for her to consider herself a practicing muslim.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
I thought we'd gone beyond the rather silly idea that you have to follow every letter of every word of the holy book to be considered part of the religion. It's a reduction to absurdity, no one does it besides that guy who wrote a book about doing it for a year.
If someone calls themselves a Muslim, I'm willing to consider them a follower of Islam. But they're going to have to accept that to call themselves a Muslim means that people are going to assume that they generally believe in the tenets of Islam. I think it's unreasonable for a person to say "I'm a Muslim" and assume I'm going to know exactly which parts of Islam they like and which they don't.
For a reduction to absurdity in the other direction, is it reasonable for me to say, "I'm a Muslim, but I don't believe God is great or even exists, and I don't believe Mohammad was his true prophet."?
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Also, the Qur'an totally does establish a minimum code of dress for both men and women, although it is more restrictive for women. It also establishes where women and men can worship, and broadly how.
Re: KalTorak's quote, it's not so much that Muslims "disregard" what the Qur'an says, but that rarely do moderate Muslims interpret the texts for themselves and, to be frank, the passage just isn't that applicable to most modern, Western Muslims' lives, especially when Muslim women work freely and bring home the bacon as often as not. Edit: In fact, one of the interpretations is that the entire quote is situational, and therefore if the situation doesn't exist (that the man is fully supporting the woman), none of the rest does, either. There is also substantial murmuring about the proper translation of the verb that represented "to beat".
I'd say that anybody who isn't following their silly book and isn't doing what's in it doesn't count as religious. That woman not covered up, not a Muslim.
Well, for one, the koran says to dress modestly. It doesn't specify any particular clothing, and the definition of modest dress has been interpreted differently by different groups.
Secondly, is it also your contention that any person who does not follow all the rules in the Bible is not a Christian? There are a lot of stupid rules in the Bible and I don't know any so called Christians who follow them all.
The only reason people don't stone their own children to death when they sleep around is they 1. aren't a christian, or 2. are a piss poor christian that doesn't do it because they'd land in trouble with the law.
Your holy book has rules, follow them or quit claiming to be religious. At least the fundies aren't bold faced liars and put their money where their mouth is.
I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.
Your book gives you a specific set of rules. That includes what you can eat, how you must dress, your place and role in the world, and when you should kill people. DO YOU DO WHAT YOUR BOOK SAYS. If you don't, you can't claim you're part of that religion.
The crazy clerics in Iran and Saudi, those are Muslims. The "nice" people in the US, not Muslims. The fundies that want to kill gays and gives us religious laws, those are christians. The smiths down the block that think it's all OK, bold faced liars.
There is no such thing as a religious moderate, those people aren't actually religious. Or at worse, they are heretics breaking their sacred books laws so as not to get in trouble with society.
what is this, some kind of bizarro "no true scotsman" reasoning?
I'm trying to understand why the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is considered valid criticism once it's applied to religion. People can still be religious without following the guidelines 100% of the time.
Then they are either a heretic or going to hell. Your wife cheated on you, did you stone her to death as the book says? If you did, congrats, you are religious and you are going to heaven. If you did not you either aren't religious and are lying through your teeth about it, or you are religious and just broke gods law for fear of secular law in which case you are going to hell and your faith is all bullshit.
If you are going to believe in that book of silly, put up or shut up.
Also, considering the contradictory nature of the Bible, nstf's definition of a religious Christian is impossible to achieve.
I think all religion is bullshit and people just lie about being religious to various degrees. The more extreme people that we dislike are actually truer to their religion. I'll give the fundies more credit than the "acceptable" christians that don't hate gays and don't beat their women. At least the fundies aren't full of shit about their beliefs.
That's all well and good, but just because you define "religious" in impossible/ridiculous terms does not suddenly make a large swath of people not religious.
Posts
That's an excellent quote and example, as well as an example of a quote that is followed by varying degrees depending on the reader, as in all Abrahamic religions - by which I mean the entire Qur'an is an "accepted part of the religion" so there isn't really anything that is more of a "tenet" than another. (Edit: I just want to be clear, I've sat with a few Muslim misogynists in my time and they actually don't use this one to back up their agenda. That's usually saved for the hadith, which can be quite vicious.)
I do hope you make the same assumption that if a man is Christian or Jewish, that he accepts the tenets of those religions that women are inferior to men.
Many of them do, yes, especially evangelicals and Baptists. Baptists don't even allow women to enter seminary. Women are expressly instructed on subservience and adherence to their husbands.
Is the misogyny at the same level of most Islamic countries? No, but I feel that's much more a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. Go back a couple hundred years in American history, and you'll see laws on the books that govern the proper legal way to beat your wife. Check out early Puritan colonies' rules on intermarital relationships.
Basically, it's an issue of secular education and enlightenment superseding any religious instruction because it makes sense and the oppressed eventually see the bullshit chauvinism disguised as religion as a worse alternative than the possibility of eternal damnation.
But Islamic countries tend to be far less educated than Western countries, or at the very least restricted by law in how much deviation from religion their education can be.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35*
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
There's a lot more. But I think what you're saying is that it's safe to assume that any Christian I meet believes wives are the property of husbands.
And that specifically, women are inferior to men (the Bible doesn't say this explicitly, but neither does the Qur'an, and yet it's cited to support the assertion). All these books pay the usual respect to "women should submit to their husbands and not do any of that silly talking too much stuff," but to assume that the follower of one religion believes it more fervently than any other religion's followers is a bit of a leap.
Agreed on all of this, but I'd also like to re-iterate that not every Muslim in America is an immigrant from the Middle East and therefore it's a fallacy to ascribe cultural assumptions (such as cultural misogyny) to a Muslim just because they're Muslim.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was getting at, it's subject to interpretation and different sects within each religion interpret passages differently. Islam, like Christianity, is too varied to make more than the most general assumptions about one's beliefs.
If you've selected to follow a religion and label yourself as a part of it, I don't see how it's "basically racism" to think "Hmm, this person is a follower of Religion X; Religion X's main beliefs are A, B, and C; it's likely that this person believes B." Maybe they'd say "Actually I only believe A and C" - now I know something about them besides their self-chosen religious label and can judge them accordingly (and more accurately). But it's not unreasonable to think (on the outset, when all I know about them is their religion) that a follower of a religion believes in that religion's main tenets.
And eventually there's some threshold where they're like "Actually I don't believe A, B, or C." At that point I go, well, why do you even consider yourself a follower of Religion X then?
Well, first, what's your basis for the contention that most Muslims believe women are inferior to men? You quoted a passage, but just because the passage exists doesn't mean people necessarily interpret it in the way you suggest.
It's not racism to judge someone for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. To ascribe something that is not a main tenant of a person's religion to them and then judge them for it is pretty ignorant though.
I guess it depends on how strongly you consider religious-based practices an inherent part of one's belief system.
See, to me, things like dictating what women can wear and where they can worship and how they can appear in public, without having any similar restriction on men, is an expression of a belief in women's inferiority.
In that regard, yes, I believe Islam and Muslims degrade women wholesale. As KalTorak said, when it gets to the instance of a individual follower saying, "Oh, I'm (whatever religion), but I don't believe in X, Y, Z," it's hard to take that person seriously. Religion isn't really designed to be a buffet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing
I'd find it easier to take people's outrage about hijabs a little more seriously if women could go topless everywhere men could in every secular nation.
Also, the Qur'an totally does establish a minimum code of dress for both men and women, although it is more restrictive for women. It also establishes where women and men can worship, and broadly how.
Re: KalTorak's quote, it's not so much that Muslims "disregard" what the Qur'an says, but that rarely do moderate Muslims interpret the texts for themselves and, to be frank, the passage just isn't that applicable to most modern, Western Muslims' lives, especially when Muslim women work freely and bring home the bacon as often as not. Edit: In fact, one of the interpretations is that the entire quote is situational, and therefore if the situation doesn't exist (that the man is fully supporting the woman), none of the rest does, either. There is also substantial murmuring about the proper translation of the verb that represented "to beat".
Why not? What basis do you have for this claim? Who says it's not a buffet and what authority do they have to decide that?
Throughout history, religions have changed, evolved, and been absorbed into other religions. Then a couple religions WRITE DOWN the stuff they believe in and suddenly people grouse because, holy shit, what people believe doesn't match what was written down, it's like that religion is evolving and changing! Interestingly, the Catholic church actually considers over-dependance on the Bible to be "bibliolatry"--idol worship of the Bible, ignoring the fact that Christianity (so the Catholic church feels) is much more than just "the words in that there book".
Incidentally, I lived in group housing one summer for a job, and one of my coworkers was a Muslim girl who was a liberal feminist. (And, yes, she ate pork.)
Just another reason NYC is awesome.
Dress codes are not federally defined, and though the fight has been ridiculous and protracted, nudity has been found to be protected free speech.
It certainly seems better for society when people treat their particular religion as a buffet. But at that point, one tends to wonder why they bother with the label of that particular religion at all, when all the good, moral things they actually believe derive from elsewhere(ie: secular post-Enlightenment thought).
Was she also a lesbian who exclusively slept with men?
This is little more than gooseish sophistry and mental gymnastics employed as a crutch to people who can't intellectually separate themselves from their culture.
"I mean, just because I'm a professional dancer, drink frequently, and have extramarital sex doesn't mean I'm not still Baptist!"
Or, you know, we haven't used to "feathers up the ass" thing in a while here. I'll go with that.
So would you consider any Christian who joins the army to not "really" be a Christian, since it says "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" in one part? How about people who eat shellfish? The Bible clearly says that's an abomination.
Sorry, I don't think someone needs to follow every word of a religious book to belong to a particular religion. It's not even possible in Christianity ("an eye for an eye" . . . "oh wait, don't take an eye for an eye after all"), so I guess Christians don't exist?
And yet, Janet Jackson was fined. Shame.
As is Ontario, and Saskatchewan. A few other provinces may have joined the fun, but I'm not current on the details.
http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/refuting-verses-in-quran-insult-women/
I particularly enjoy the discussion of Lot.
My favorite version of that is the difference between a Jew, a Muslim, and a Baptist.
Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, Muslims don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and Baptist don't recognize each other at the bar.
Wow, that's just... Well, it's no worse than the OT but it's quite a bit worse than the NT.
Faith is blind by definition, Mormons aren't unique in this.
You seem to be forgetting that Islam, like Christianity, is comprised of many sects with varying beliefs.
You're making assumptions about their beliefs based on your interpretation of their book and the actions of some muslims.
It's intellectually lazy.
I'd say that anybody who isn't following their silly book and isn't doing what's in it doesn't count as religious. That woman not covered up, not a Muslim.
Your book gives you a specific set of rules. That includes what you can eat, how you must dress, your place and role in the world, and when you should kill people. DO YOU DO WHAT YOUR BOOK SAYS. If you don't, you can't claim you're part of that religion.
The crazy clerics in Iran and Saudi, those are Muslims. The "nice" people in the US, not Muslims. The fundies that want to kill gays and gives us religious laws, those are christians. The smiths down the block that think it's all OK, bold faced liars.
There is no such thing as a religious moderate, those people aren't actually religious. Or at worse, they are heretics breaking their sacred books laws so as not to get in trouble with society.
Well, for one, the koran says to dress modestly. It doesn't specify any particular clothing, and the definition of modest dress has been interpreted differently by different groups.
Secondly, is it also your contention that any person who does not follow all the rules in the Bible is not a Christian? There are a lot of stupid rules in the Bible and I don't know any so called Christians who follow them all.
You're assuming the book is the end all be all of any given religion. For many it's not.
I am not aware of any sects of Islam that eat pork.
I'm sorry, but that person was not religiously observant. It's quite a stretch for her to consider herself a practicing muslim.
If someone calls themselves a Muslim, I'm willing to consider them a follower of Islam. But they're going to have to accept that to call themselves a Muslim means that people are going to assume that they generally believe in the tenets of Islam. I think it's unreasonable for a person to say "I'm a Muslim" and assume I'm going to know exactly which parts of Islam they like and which they don't.
For a reduction to absurdity in the other direction, is it reasonable for me to say, "I'm a Muslim, but I don't believe God is great or even exists, and I don't believe Mohammad was his true prophet."?
The only reason people don't stone their own children to death when they sleep around is they 1. aren't a christian, or 2. are a piss poor christian that doesn't do it because they'd land in trouble with the law.
Your holy book has rules, follow them or quit claiming to be religious. At least the fundies aren't bold faced liars and put their money where their mouth is.
what is this, some kind of bizarro "no true scotsman" reasoning?
edit: high five wwtMask
Then they are either a heretic or going to hell. Your wife cheated on you, did you stone her to death as the book says? If you did, congrats, you are religious and you are going to heaven. If you did not you either aren't religious and are lying through your teeth about it, or you are religious and just broke gods law for fear of secular law in which case you are going to hell and your faith is all bullshit.
If you are going to believe in that book of silly, put up or shut up.
I think all religion is bullshit and people just lie about being religious to various degrees. The more extreme people that we dislike are actually truer to their religion. I'll give the fundies more credit than the "acceptable" christians that don't hate gays and don't beat their women. At least the fundies aren't full of shit about their beliefs.